Is this an example?

Spell My Name with a "The" needs Insistent Terminology like it says in its description, right? Or would any title or name preceded by a "The" count, like any use of "The Count" or "The King"?

So, the following wouldn't fit?

... And most examples don't seem to be Insistent Terminology anyway... So maybe we should just remove that part of the description and rewrite the Laconic instead? ... The scope of this question now seems like it should go to some other thread...

edited 5th Jul '17 7:36:18 AM by Malady

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

From Losing a Shoe in the Struggle:

• In Die Hard, John has his shoes off in the restroom when the Nakatomi building is taken over by terrorists. He is forced to flee the scene quickly to avoid detection and does not have time to get them back on, forcing him to go through the entire ordeal shoeless. This causes significant hardships for him as the movie progresses.

This got deleted before, by a Troper who didn't think it seemed like a real example, but someone else put it back. Should it stay or disappear again this time? If the former, then maybe this entry could also return:

• In the Burn Notice episode "Desperate Times", Jesse loses his shoes when enemy forces breach their base of operations, since he doesn't have time to put them on before his escape.
  Jesse: (Pulling a piece of glass out of his foot) You don't realize how much broken glass there is in the street until you're not wearing any shoes.

edited 6th Jul '17 9:40:01 AM by dsneybuf

It really depends on whether the trope is about the idea that losing one's shoes creates a dramatic hindrance or the act of losing one's shoes during conflict of some sort. In the Die Hard example, the hero takes off his shoes for entirely mundane reasons and is then caught in a dramatic situation without the opportunity to put them back on. This doesn't equate to a shoe falling off during the conflict. You'd have gotten the same result if he'd gone outside his home barefoot and then had to fight criminals.

If the trope requires that the shoe(s) get lost during a dramatic situation, then those two examples above are wrong. If it's broad enough to encompass being caught without one's shoes regardless of the reason, then both of them are valid.

edited 6th Jul '17 9:47:41 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The trope definition is about the act of losing a shoe (or similar item of clothing) due to or during a struggle or unexpected physical activity, serving to highlight how serious the situation is. It's a form of Clothing Damage. It's not about simply being barefoot. Neither one of those is an example.

There are several more like them on the page, where the character is barefoot and doesn't have time to put on their shoes. Those are also not an example,and I'm removing them.

edited 6th Jul '17 10:12:23 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

I'm going to go ahead and pull Darker and Edgier from Cross Ange based on this post. 3/4 people who commented on it said it doesn't qualify, and the remaining 1/4 technically didn't even say that it did qualify.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Back to Losing a Shoe in the Struggle, I happened on this one, and am not sure about it:

• In The Witches, when Luke is turned into a mouse, all his clothes fall off in the process, and at the end, when Miss Irvine turns him back into a boy, all his clothes are absent.

The loss of the clothes is due to the sudden size change — I think that's a different trope, but can't recall which one it is.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Regardless, it's way broader than simply losing a shoe.

Edit: The trope you want is Shapeshifting Excludes Clothing.

edited 6th Jul '17 11:00:48 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Thank you!

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

The Woof entry should also go there.

Thanks. Got them.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

OK, got a different one — in one of Spider Robinson's Callahan's Crosstime Saloon books, the Big Bad is a city bureaucrat, who's pretty much just doing her job — enforcing the business regulations, to the detriment of the owner of the bar, which has pretty much been operating with a fine disregard for those regulations. Granted, she's being obnoxious about it, but the real reason she's the Big Bad is because she won't cut Jake, the bar owner, any slack. Would that be an example of Adult Fear?

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

From YMMV.Persona 4:

• Harsher in Hindsight: Failing to save someone who were thrown into the TV before the dateline could get them killed. Fast forward to nearly 9 years later and you'll discover a 22-year-old American college student has died in a coma after being released from North Korea after over an year spending time in prison for committing a crime there. It would be obvious to think how know what would happen if they failed to recuse a individual from an another country they being held.

Honestly, the grammar alone makes me want to pull it, but even if I parse what it's trying to say, I have to say I don't think that's an example of much of anything.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Yeah, that's horrifyingly poorly written. Pull for that alone.

I don't really see how. Obstructive Bureaucrat is a trope that most people are familiar with from real life; it hardly seems like it would be something to trigger a reflexive fear reaction. Especially as, based on that example, the work is either not treating the matter seriously or pushing a very warped Aesop.

edited 6th Jul '17 12:59:18 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

To me Adult Fear is more a well fear not mere villainy.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

OK. The reason I thught she might qualify is that the only thing she has going for her as a Villain is the fact that she can, as a city employee, shut the Place down. It's only her position that gives her any teeth at all.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Shut it down for something that is entirely legitimate, if I read the example correctly. I mean, it's certainly a fear, but only a small portion of the typical audience will consist of small business owners for whom it's a proximate and relevant one. I guess it could fall under the "lose your livelihood/income" part of the trope, especially if played up in the work.

edited 6th Jul '17 1:34:59 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Mostly legitimate, although she is also an Obstructive Bureaucrat and engages in Bothering by the Book and Rules Lawyering as well. Jake's situation is "losing your livelihood, but for all the other central characters, The Place is very much a second home / second family (or, for some of them, their only family, even if it's family-by-choice, not family-by-blood.)

edited 6th Jul '17 1:59:29 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Any opinions on the Spirited Young Lady issue with Isabel Archer and Henrietta Stackpole, as asked in 4033 (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13543987200A54420100&page=162#4033) and argued in some following posts?

So far it is my 'yes' and lexicon's 'no' (she deleted those from the page) and Larkmarn also thinks that Isabel likely fits while Henrietta might be too lower class to fit (though currently the description says middle class is ok).

Thanks a bunch!

From the descriptions, I'd say Isabel does fit and Henrietta probably doesn't. My hesitation on Henrietta is that she's a working girl, which tends to not overlap with "Proper Lady" in the sense of the trope.

edited 6th Jul '17 3:21:56 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Reposting from the previous page so it doesn't get lost:

Is this example on Natalie Portman being used correctly?:

• Genius Bonus: She's obliquely referenced in The Social Network, as a lawyer lists several of the types of people who were also attending Harvard at the time Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook, ending with a movie star. Another lawyer asks who the movie star was, but doesn't get an answer.

I'm having some trouble distinguishing Invoked Trope and Exploited Trope, which I attempt to resolve through the following WIP example entry of the Cult trope.

In Warhammer 40,000, many factions deliberately establish cults to inflitrate the target societies and achieve some purpose. Notable ways this could manifest include the following:

• The Forces of Chaos make use of this to spread their Religion of Evil. On Imperial worlds with a significant presence of the Imperial law enforcement (e.g. Adeptus Arbites) and/or the local populace are unlikely to welcome them if they preach openly about their creed, they're adopt a benign facade and a Mystery Cult structure to slip under the radar and have an easier time gradually corrupting the locals, but once their cover is certainly blown or they decide there's no need for concealment, they will reveal their true allegiance.
• The Tyranid Swarm sends out Genestealers ahead of its Hive Fleet to infiltrate worlds in its path by establishing "Genestealer cults" within the populace through a combination of Mind Control and parasitic breeding of Genestealer hybrids as well as more true Genestealers. The Genestealer Cult's ultimate goal is to sow enough discord and anarchy that the local military forces' ability to resist the impending Tyranid invasion is sabotaged; if it can actually achieve total domination of the planet, then it would be even better. However, unlike the example of Chaotic cults, the religion preached by Genestealer cults (that is, the worship of the incoming Tyranids, whether explicitly or obliquely) is a complete sham as far as anyone can tell ^note There's no evidence that the Tyranids have any gods of their own. Even their Hive Mind itself may not be an actual entity of its own, but rather a gestalt phenomenon born from the collective consciousness, and thus is more properly described as a collective embodiment of the entire composite race..
• On the Imperium of Man's side, certain Radical (i.e. extremist) factions/individual members of the Inquistion see fit to make use of cults as fronts for their activities. Some of them do it to conceal their true business, be it the usual snooping around or a secret project/experiment; others deliberately establish or prop up cults preaching heresy in order to root out local heretics from the woodworks, and then deal with them all in one swoop; and still others belong to the Recongregator school of Radicalism, who believe its their sworn duty to fend off stagnation and weed out the complacent and the incompetent by fomenting strife within the Imperium, forcing it into the crucible of war and conflict time and again with "survival of the fittest" as their justification, and anti-Imperial cults being merely one of their many tools.
• Then there are those Radical Inquisitors who either pushed the boundaries of extremism far enough to be declared Excommunicate Traitoris even by their Radical peers or have actually turned their back on the Imperium of their own will (though not necessarily by embracing Chaos); these are much more malevolent then the previously mentioned "loyal" Radicals, for they establish cults for the sake of furthering personal agendas and/or ideologies that are invariably actively hostile/threatening to humanity (and thus, by proxy, the Imperium). Such cults can be a Path of Inspiration, or shamelessly open about being a Religion of Evil, or a Scam Religion depending on the founding Inquisitor's personal beliefs as well as intentions behind founding the cult(s) in question.

Which of these examples, if any, are cases of of the Cult trope being Invoked/Exploited? If an example is of neither, then what is it?

---

~Another Duck:

The third paragraph describes a tendency among writers, something that does happen but is not universal among them. It's not integral to the trope's definition itself, but it's useful information for understanding at least some of its manifestations. This is common practice on many trope articles, from my experience.

edited 7th Jul '17 12:15:53 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

The trope's not universal, though. A tendency is a pattern, which is what tropes are. It describes an overall tendency for possible situations where the tropes can be used (i.e. a tendency to use the trope), not a tendency for actual examples. Anyway, if you want an opinion that's alongside yours, get a different one.

Check out my fanfiction!

Well, I am asking for as many varying opinions as possible by posting my inquiry on a public thread rather than via PM, aren't I? It's just that for some reason, you're the only one so far who expressed any interest in that particular question, regardless of the actual stance. For all either of us, there's someone else seeing this discussion who holds a third opinion not in line with either of ours, but for some reason is keeping silent.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Can a character that receives only one off-hand mention be The Ghost? Trope page suggests that it needs to be done consistently, not just a one-off mention.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

I think you answered your own question there.